Longer elected terms would lead to better government?(demodexio.substack.com)
demodexio.substack.com
Longer elected terms would lead to better government?
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/longer-elected-terms-lead-to-better
27 comments
> He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer.
That wasn't the only restriction. He also recognized that the longer someone is power, the more likely they are to be corrupted. Plato does not believe that democracy is the best form of government. According to him, equality brings power-seeking individuals who are motivated by personal gain.
In the US, there is a mix but there is a telling wrinkle. The Supreme Court is a lifelong post, but the decisions are carefully documented and deconstructed. The President (and most legislators) have a much lower level of scrutiny because of intentional obfuscation (like National Security reasoning) and closed sessions without formal reasoning for their actions. Transparency is not valued highly at the most immediate levels, which is why corruption is inevitable under the current practices.
That wasn't the only restriction. He also recognized that the longer someone is power, the more likely they are to be corrupted. Plato does not believe that democracy is the best form of government. According to him, equality brings power-seeking individuals who are motivated by personal gain.
In the US, there is a mix but there is a telling wrinkle. The Supreme Court is a lifelong post, but the decisions are carefully documented and deconstructed. The President (and most legislators) have a much lower level of scrutiny because of intentional obfuscation (like National Security reasoning) and closed sessions without formal reasoning for their actions. Transparency is not valued highly at the most immediate levels, which is why corruption is inevitable under the current practices.
What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position. The lifetime appt likely means your side will defend you at most or all costs.
Even if I am able to verify one side or the other of the Court is being hypocritical with their argument for lifting Roe v Wade (abortion legality) soon via the careful examining of the results, will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
Even if I am able to verify one side or the other of the Court is being hypocritical with their argument for lifting Roe v Wade (abortion legality) soon via the careful examining of the results, will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
> What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position
I think you mean political appointment.
The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit).
> will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term.
That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.
I think you mean political appointment.
The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit).
> will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term.
That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.
It is often said that the USA Supreme Court is politicized because it is chosen by elected officials, whereas in Britain the recommendations for the high court are made by legalists, and therefore the British high court is less political.
As an outsider, it's really weird to see the intense debates over the supreme court couched in terms of political points of view. I mean, that's what elections should be about... it really comes across as if Americans have given up hope of a functioning democracy and have retreated to battling for political appointments to the SC for long-term policy.
We did a long comparison of the constitutional crisis in Hungary and the USA here:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre...
> we'll pull together when the moment's need arises.
Unless the need are manifesting slow enough (e.g. climate change).
Unless the need are manifesting slow enough (e.g. climate change).
Yours is a great point, because it brings to light the follow-on question; what system, or improvements to an existing one, would help people work towards longer-term goals? I think it's a difficult ask, because even a responsible, civic-minded person, will honestly, almost always, choose to satisfy an immediate, personal, need over a concrete, community, ~500 year goal. (I'm not just speaking to climate, change here. I'm honestly interested in how groups might genuinely work toward such goals).
I can only believe that organized Religion has that much staying power. Nothing else could last through 20 generations.
I think religions are valuable because they give their adherents a common foundation on which to base their decisions. So if they live in a community with a fellow believer, they can be reasonably sure how they will behave over time - which has advantages to them.
It's noteworthy that the thinking around climate change has some similarities with religion.
I think religions are valuable because they give their adherents a common foundation on which to base their decisions. So if they live in a community with a fellow believer, they can be reasonably sure how they will behave over time - which has advantages to them.
It's noteworthy that the thinking around climate change has some similarities with religion.
The academy has also done exceptionally well. Individual institutions like the University of Oxford have unbroken chains of governance going back centuries, and so do scholarly societies. And of course, the institution of (say) science as a whole could also be regarded as a common endeavour lasting centuries where the highest-status individuals routinely make decisions with the far future in mind (although you would usually say that they're doing it for their legacy).
Despite the history, it is clear that the academy is also failing in the current error. I was in academia (science) for a very long time and watched the collapse of the cultural norms that made it successful. I had mentors and friends that are a generation older than me who confirmed my observations of accelerating decline. The reproducibility crises in multiple fields are just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't think the academy is failing any more than is the historical norm. The collapsing cultural norms are not centuries old, they are a product of the academic boom of the latter half of the twentieth century, where the first world (and certainly America) was more or less peaceful, the population was sharply rising, and access to and demand for higher education was exploding. The academic norms of the 1980s would be unrecognisable to an academic of the 1920s, yet I claim that both academics are part of a longstanding lineage of people working towards a common endeavour.
And the reproducibility crisis is not an example of decline. It's not like social science used to be reproducible then stopped. It's that for the first time in history, we've realised that things are bad, and now we're (slowly) starting to do good science. The reproducibility crisis is an example of improvement!
And the reproducibility crisis is not an example of decline. It's not like social science used to be reproducible then stopped. It's that for the first time in history, we've realised that things are bad, and now we're (slowly) starting to do good science. The reproducibility crisis is an example of improvement!
I like this answer, but it would be more compelling if a concrete case of planning and execution over a long time frame could be cited. The kind of concrete example I'm talking about is, "We set out to build x or reduce y, over 300 years and it took us 450, but it's done.".
This is an interesting answer. There are some actual real-world examples to support it. I think someplace like Cologne Cathedral was planned and the plan executed to completion in ~600 years.
I think it would also be fair to say, that there were other organizing factors in addition to religion, certainly civic, and economic.
I think it would also be fair to say, that there were other organizing factors in addition to religion, certainly civic, and economic.
I think the only thing missing from the climate change/religion similarity is that climate change has no savior or ultimate authority
Isn't it more that if corrupt people aren't held accountable, so too the government is corrupt - or something like that?
Regulatory capture/policy capture by for-profit industrial complexes seems never ending, each major industry taking its turn at extracting wealth - which wouldn't be so much of a problem if individuals weren't left behind or extracted enough to suffocate them towards death.
Regulatory capture/policy capture by for-profit industrial complexes seems never ending, each major industry taking its turn at extracting wealth - which wouldn't be so much of a problem if individuals weren't left behind or extracted enough to suffocate them towards death.
> My unsolicited opinion: a government reflects its people.
A democracy tends to reflect its people a dictatorship tends to reflect the dictator.
A democracy tends to reflect its people a dictatorship tends to reflect the dictator.
You’re right, except that the founder’s experiment clearly failed very early and was foolish to begin with.
If lasting functional government is the goal, it's clearly been successful.
Let's not believe the USA was founded as a utopian project.
Let's not believe the USA was founded as a utopian project.
I mean there was that whole civil war deal
>It devolves to sensualism, that is, the highest aim of the people is to satisfy their desires, and they capture the government for that purpose.
If Plato's hypothesis is that all democracies will elect 100 mega-Bernies to their senates, I think we can safely say it has been falsified.
If Plato's hypothesis is that all democracies will elect 100 mega-Bernies to their senates, I think we can safely say it has been falsified.
Oh, because the US has long terms implemented currently?
Plato's hypothesis was that shorter terms would lead to more democratic (and therefore baser) democracies. Our terms are not that long, although incumbent advantage makes them longer in practice.
Really? Because the top comment to which you replied stated:
>This is a problem as old as thought itself. One of the worlds first philosophers, Plato, wrote a book about it. He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer.
>This is a problem as old as thought itself. One of the worlds first philosophers, Plato, wrote a book about it. He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer.
[deleted]
Ancient philosophers did not necessarily think democracy was good. Some were even so direct as to say that noble blood deserved to rule. Plato believed longer terms were less influenced by democracy than shorter terms, and therefore they were a better form of government.
I think someone is going to have to come up with some actual scholarly citations, because you and the top commenter to which I am referring are explicitly disagreeing and up until this point all anyone has done is make baseless assertions
I’m looking at both comments. They are both saying Plato pushed for longer terms.
[deleted]
Plato was among the first to stand liberalism in contrast to democracy:
----------------
Hayek said "If I have to chose between a democratic society and a liberal society, then I must choose a liberal society." That idea has been at the heart of Western political theory since Plato, who also suggested that it was better to live in a liberal society than a democratic society, but Plato was reacting, specifically, to the democratic murder of Socrates. Socrates had advocated for a style of probing philosophy that would wake people up by forcing them to "Question everything" and this made the people of Athens uncomfortable, so they accused him of "corrupting the youth of Athens" and they sentenced him to death. And Plato's analysis of the democratic murder of Socrates set up the conflict between democracy and liberalism that the West has spent the last 2,500 years discussing. The criticism of the "tyranny of the majority" usually starts with a discussion of the democratic murder of Socrates.
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-entrepreneu...
----------------
Hayek said "If I have to chose between a democratic society and a liberal society, then I must choose a liberal society." That idea has been at the heart of Western political theory since Plato, who also suggested that it was better to live in a liberal society than a democratic society, but Plato was reacting, specifically, to the democratic murder of Socrates. Socrates had advocated for a style of probing philosophy that would wake people up by forcing them to "Question everything" and this made the people of Athens uncomfortable, so they accused him of "corrupting the youth of Athens" and they sentenced him to death. And Plato's analysis of the democratic murder of Socrates set up the conflict between democracy and liberalism that the West has spent the last 2,500 years discussing. The criticism of the "tyranny of the majority" usually starts with a discussion of the democratic murder of Socrates.
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-entrepreneu...
Pardon my simple question: What is Liberalism?
Nothing to pardon! Liberalism is the philosophy in which individual equality before the law and inalienable liberties are the top priority.
This can fit in well with democracy (e.g. Bill of Rights), but can also be absent in democracies (e.g. the majority being able to vote to kill you). Similarly, liberalism can influence governments of all types, codifying individual rights and laws which can limit the power (or at least the rights) of the government.
This can fit in well with democracy (e.g. Bill of Rights), but can also be absent in democracies (e.g. the majority being able to vote to kill you). Similarly, liberalism can influence governments of all types, codifying individual rights and laws which can limit the power (or at least the rights) of the government.
Well put, thank you :)
"Longer terms for politicians leads to better government. If legislators were elected for terms of 9 or 11 years then the democracies would enjoy much better leadership than what they currently get."
Then by simple reasoning, the best government possible would be to elect them for life - they'd never have to pander again. Yeah, there's a /s missing, but I think you'd get better government by attracting better people than those interested in being in government. Perhaps term limits, certainly limits on lobbying or donations, anything to make corruption harder and (somehow) make results attainable.
Then by simple reasoning, the best government possible would be to elect them for life - they'd never have to pander again. Yeah, there's a /s missing, but I think you'd get better government by attracting better people than those interested in being in government. Perhaps term limits, certainly limits on lobbying or donations, anything to make corruption harder and (somehow) make results attainable.
>Then by simple reasoning
yeah, but more complex reasoning might suppose that for some things there might be a sweet spot, that is to say the efficiency might rise for a number of years, but then decline.
yeah, but more complex reasoning might suppose that for some things there might be a sweet spot, that is to say the efficiency might rise for a number of years, but then decline.
Or, to add complexity, longer terms would improve some measures and worsen others, each measure having its own sweet spot.
Then it's left to each stakeholder to weigh the importance of each factor to them. To find the global optimum you then need to weight the relative importance of each stakeholder and each opinion held by each.
Impossible, of course!
Edit: that's not even including how all of these assessments vary over time, and also the peoples' expectations and predictions of the future variation, even if all of the above is known at one point in time.
Then it's left to each stakeholder to weigh the importance of each factor to them. To find the global optimum you then need to weight the relative importance of each stakeholder and each opinion held by each.
Impossible, of course!
Edit: that's not even including how all of these assessments vary over time, and also the peoples' expectations and predictions of the future variation, even if all of the above is known at one point in time.
>Or, to add complexity, longer terms would improve some measures and worsen others, each measure having its own sweet spot.
So maybe there shouldn't be a signle government? But e.g. elect a "government for economy", "government for internal affairs", "government for education" etc?
So maybe there shouldn't be a signle government? But e.g. elect a "government for economy", "government for internal affairs", "government for education" etc?
From the essay:
"Finally, I’ll add a different kind of example, an example we mentioned in an earlier essay: it is worth noting that during the debate over the Brexit treaty, from 2016-2020, the Tories in the House Of Lords were far more reasonable and rational than the Tories in the House Of Commons. This example is especially interesting since we are comparing people who belonged to the same political party. The only difference between them is that one group was free to think about the long-term consequences of the treaty, while the other group was under pressure to pander."
"Finally, I’ll add a different kind of example, an example we mentioned in an earlier essay: it is worth noting that during the debate over the Brexit treaty, from 2016-2020, the Tories in the House Of Lords were far more reasonable and rational than the Tories in the House Of Commons. This example is especially interesting since we are comparing people who belonged to the same political party. The only difference between them is that one group was free to think about the long-term consequences of the treaty, while the other group was under pressure to pander."
> The only difference between them is that one group was free to think about the long-term consequences of the treaty, while the other group was under pressure to pander.
I agree that's the difference, I don't think it comes from the term length though. The lords are toothless so it doesen't make sense to apply your presure/lobying there. Also some percentage of them weren't politicians before being named in the lords.
I agree that's the difference, I don't think it comes from the term length though. The lords are toothless so it doesen't make sense to apply your presure/lobying there. Also some percentage of them weren't politicians before being named in the lords.
I think of this as the "If one beer is good, ten beers must be even better!" fallacy.
It probably has a formal name that I won't look up right now.
It probably has a formal name that I won't look up right now.
I’m not exactly sure if this is formally defined, but at the very least it seems like black and white thinking, e.g. more = good, less = bad, therefore more + more must be good too.
It ignores the nuance of what happens as the quantity grows.
If I stay awake for two extra hours, I can get more done in a day. Conclusion: I’ll stay up 24 hours/day for maximum efficiency.
It ignores the nuance of what happens as the quantity grows.
If I stay awake for two extra hours, I can get more done in a day. Conclusion: I’ll stay up 24 hours/day for maximum efficiency.
The supreme court while not a directly elected body, is selected by elected officials. They are selected for life and for the most part are less partisan and less pandering. On the other hand, they are there for life.
For elected officials, I would like longer terms for members of the house of representatives to have longer terms but with an option to get kicked out, if they severely underperform or go against their mandate --but kicking them out should take 60% rather than simple majority to avoid the threat of agitators who constantly would threaten recall elections. Just like calls to the 25 amendment should have to go through a non-partisan committee made up of independents to decide if an official should be removed --not just because the opposition does not like the official.
For elected officials, I would like longer terms for members of the house of representatives to have longer terms but with an option to get kicked out, if they severely underperform or go against their mandate --but kicking them out should take 60% rather than simple majority to avoid the threat of agitators who constantly would threaten recall elections. Just like calls to the 25 amendment should have to go through a non-partisan committee made up of independents to decide if an official should be removed --not just because the opposition does not like the official.
>>> members of the house of representatives ... to get kicked out
That is in the federal constitution for Senators. Or it was until the lobbyists took over by pretending things would be better if Senators are beholden to lobbyists instead of being recalled by States.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...
Good read, for those interested in going back to what worked better. "George Mason argued that state legislative selection gave states the power of self-defense against the federal government."
That is in the federal constitution for Senators. Or it was until the lobbyists took over by pretending things would be better if Senators are beholden to lobbyists instead of being recalled by States.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...
Good read, for those interested in going back to what worked better. "George Mason argued that state legislative selection gave states the power of self-defense against the federal government."
It is often said that the USA Supreme Court is politicized because it is chosen by elected officials, whereas in Britain the recommendations for the high court is made by legalists, and therefore the British high court is less political.
This is it quite so true in the us now, which will hurt the reputation of the supremes and harm political unity/involvement. Gotta pick “good people” for these kinds of jobs rather than flunkies.
[deleted]
Length of terms is not the sole parameter.
Practically speaking, turnover in the US Senate is pretty low. Thomas Benton wrote a memoir called Thirty Years in the Senate of the United States, when that was a very long tenure. Chuck Grassley is in his 41st year, and has talked of running again. Mitch McConnell is in his seventh term.
From the essay:
"We previously listed some of the most admired leaders of both the left and the right and we noted that all of them came from safe seats. In the case of someone like Margaret Thatcher, it was a deliberate choice to give her a Tory safe seat. And safe seats help create great leaders, since it allows those leaders to focus on leadership, rather than having to think about elections. In other words, over the last 300 years, to the extent that the democracies have had good leadership, this has been achieved through a bit of engineering, where the system grants certain leaders lifetime posts, while pretending to do something different."
"We previously listed some of the most admired leaders of both the left and the right and we noted that all of them came from safe seats. In the case of someone like Margaret Thatcher, it was a deliberate choice to give her a Tory safe seat. And safe seats help create great leaders, since it allows those leaders to focus on leadership, rather than having to think about elections. In other words, over the last 300 years, to the extent that the democracies have had good leadership, this has been achieved through a bit of engineering, where the system grants certain leaders lifetime posts, while pretending to do something different."
OK, but how's that working out in the US Senate, or even in the House? It has worked out, at times in the past - there was decent leadership there on occasion. But at the moment, we still have people who pretty much have safe seats, but the leadership is... rather lacking.
That's the thing that is missed about the US's governmental system. The House of Representatives has quick turnover, the Senate slower, and the Supreme Court, slowest. And their terms are staggered. It's all by design. It's tragic that the US and the UK are trying to turn the Senate and House of Lords into the same body as the House of Representatives and House Commons, respectively. It breaks a check on power and a pillar of stability.
>It's all by design
I don't think that design ever expected a class of professional politicians who spend their lives in office. I think the expectation was that people would serve a few terms as a service to the Country then return to their private lives, not dictate policy for entire generations.
I don't think that design ever expected a class of professional politicians who spend their lives in office. I think the expectation was that people would serve a few terms as a service to the Country then return to their private lives, not dictate policy for entire generations.
For that to work, it would need the House to encourage frequent turnover every two years. This could be done by having more Reps with each having fewer constituents, so each Rep has less influence and power. It was like this, until the lobbyists realized that too many Reps would be difficult to control and influence so the size of House was capped in 1929.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-populat...
Fixing gerrymandering is the answer.
Ok, but I think strange women lying in ponds distributing swords would be better.
Agreed. There's a bit of an authentication problem; and some practicalities: which pond?
Well, we should probably defer to local ponds for local leadership. Perhaps larger bodies of water could be used for higher positions. To be President you have to collect swords from both Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Vice President could be chosen by the Great Lakes.
How do we authenticate the swords? And who has the root of trust?
Something something blockchain.
No, that's more "sword in a rock" which was the previous generation of the technology
[deleted]
Shorter terms devolve the actual functions of governance to unelected, long term burrocrats, thereby ensuring the reigns of power are held in a stable structure that cannot be perturbed by passing social fancies. and that would be better yet, right?
I think that best government is least government; if we need a "governing class" hanging around all the time, then making sure they're webbed up and tied down with process, procedures, and other bullshit to the point of almost total sclerosis is the best way for society to survive their presence.
I think that best government is least government; if we need a "governing class" hanging around all the time, then making sure they're webbed up and tied down with process, procedures, and other bullshit to the point of almost total sclerosis is the best way for society to survive their presence.
> I think that best government is least government;
The problem with this view is that government is the way that we - as a society - make collective decisions about the rules and norms under which we want to live, as well as the way we build programs to serve the public good and achieve things that we want to achieve together.
If you make that process - the process of deciding rules and norms - so painstaking slow, and the process of enforcing the rules nearly impossible, then what you end up with is a society with out rules or norms. Which isn't a society. Or with rules and norms locked down and frozen, unable to adjust to the changing needs of the society.
What we need is a government that is as responsive to the needs and wants of the governed as possible.
Usually the way you achieve that is through various forms of democracies, but those are prone to tyrannies of the majority - in which a majority intentionally choose to oppress various minorities. So the trick is to have a super-responsive Democracy that also has safeguards in place to protect the minority from the majority.
And there in lies the rub, what those safeguards should be is the never ending debate.
But "best government is least government" is a truly toxic and self-destructive meme that has badly infected US culture. If you want to understand what you're actually saying with that sentence, s/government/civilization/g. Government is simply the mechanism through which we collectively build our civilization.
The problem with this view is that government is the way that we - as a society - make collective decisions about the rules and norms under which we want to live, as well as the way we build programs to serve the public good and achieve things that we want to achieve together.
If you make that process - the process of deciding rules and norms - so painstaking slow, and the process of enforcing the rules nearly impossible, then what you end up with is a society with out rules or norms. Which isn't a society. Or with rules and norms locked down and frozen, unable to adjust to the changing needs of the society.
What we need is a government that is as responsive to the needs and wants of the governed as possible.
Usually the way you achieve that is through various forms of democracies, but those are prone to tyrannies of the majority - in which a majority intentionally choose to oppress various minorities. So the trick is to have a super-responsive Democracy that also has safeguards in place to protect the minority from the majority.
And there in lies the rub, what those safeguards should be is the never ending debate.
But "best government is least government" is a truly toxic and self-destructive meme that has badly infected US culture. If you want to understand what you're actually saying with that sentence, s/government/civilization/g. Government is simply the mechanism through which we collectively build our civilization.
> The problem with this view is that government is the way that we - as a society - make collective decisions about the rules and norms under which we want to live, as well as the way we build programs to serve the public good and achieve things that we want to achieve together.
There's nothing in what you wrote there that can't be and isn't done in the private spheres. Making "collective decisions about the rules and norms under which we want to live"? That's part of any culture, and often happens by social processes in which government is irrelevant. And charitable organizations — or "programs to serve the public good" — have a long and successful history of outdoing government at actually helping people in need. Finally, business and social organizations "achieve things that we want to achieve together" in a way that doesn't involve government coercion.
You suggest we can "s/government/civilization/g", but I'd say you have it backwards, if you value people working together willingly to accomplish great things for each other.
There's nothing in what you wrote there that can't be and isn't done in the private spheres. Making "collective decisions about the rules and norms under which we want to live"? That's part of any culture, and often happens by social processes in which government is irrelevant. And charitable organizations — or "programs to serve the public good" — have a long and successful history of outdoing government at actually helping people in need. Finally, business and social organizations "achieve things that we want to achieve together" in a way that doesn't involve government coercion.
You suggest we can "s/government/civilization/g", but I'd say you have it backwards, if you value people working together willingly to accomplish great things for each other.
> There's nothing in what you wrote there that can't be and isn't done in the private spheres.
There are many things which the private sphere cannot do, and other things which it could do in theory but has utterly failed at in practice. The obvious things it cannot do in theory or practice are set laws - the rules we all must live by whether we want to or not. Things like you don't get to murder other people on a whim. That is no something the private sector can enforce, and if you argue that society could simply enforce that through the majority exiling people who commit those sort of crimes - what you are describing is government, in its most primitive form. The private sector cannot handle this - not even in theory.
As for things the private sector could handle in theory, but has utterly failed at in practice, health care is an obvious one. If you compare the places where the government handles health care as a private good well to places where health care is handled by the private sector, the private sector has not outperformed the government - anywhere.
It really boils down to this: not everything can be voluntary in a society. Some rules have to be set, and enforced by everyone with no opt out. We can debate endlessly about exactly which set of rules should be included in that, but there's a minimal set (don't kill, don't steal, etc) that almost everyone can agree on. The process of agreeing upon those rules and enforcing them is, by definition, government. And having those rules exist and enforced is, by definition, civilization.
There are many things which the private sphere cannot do, and other things which it could do in theory but has utterly failed at in practice. The obvious things it cannot do in theory or practice are set laws - the rules we all must live by whether we want to or not. Things like you don't get to murder other people on a whim. That is no something the private sector can enforce, and if you argue that society could simply enforce that through the majority exiling people who commit those sort of crimes - what you are describing is government, in its most primitive form. The private sector cannot handle this - not even in theory.
As for things the private sector could handle in theory, but has utterly failed at in practice, health care is an obvious one. If you compare the places where the government handles health care as a private good well to places where health care is handled by the private sector, the private sector has not outperformed the government - anywhere.
It really boils down to this: not everything can be voluntary in a society. Some rules have to be set, and enforced by everyone with no opt out. We can debate endlessly about exactly which set of rules should be included in that, but there's a minimal set (don't kill, don't steal, etc) that almost everyone can agree on. The process of agreeing upon those rules and enforcing them is, by definition, government. And having those rules exist and enforced is, by definition, civilization.
I'm with you on paragraphs one and three — there is a minimum government below which, if it didn't exist, it would arise spontaneously. Paragraph two, well, I'd like to see this country where a reasonably undistorted private sector provides healthcare. Certainly no such thing exists in the United States, where every subsector of the healthcare and insurance industries is regulated beyond any sort of fair competition.
No such thing exists anywhere. Almost every country on the planet provides some sort of public health care. And any country that doesn't, one could argue the private sector health care is distorted.
This is because it is impossible to provide private health care in an undistorted market. A patient can often cannot "shop around" for health care. It can never be a truly voluntary exchange when one party's health is on the line. There will always be an significant element of coercion and urgency for the party needing care. This is especially true of emergency and urgent care, but is true to varying degrees for most forms of health care.
This is because it is impossible to provide private health care in an undistorted market. A patient can often cannot "shop around" for health care. It can never be a truly voluntary exchange when one party's health is on the line. There will always be an significant element of coercion and urgency for the party needing care. This is especially true of emergency and urgent care, but is true to varying degrees for most forms of health care.
I like most of your post, but I think your last paragraph is wrong. The government is not the civilization. It is one of the ways we collectively build our civilization, but far from the only one. Government is essential - anarchy does not build great civilizations - and it has been the foundation of building western civilization. It was the foundation by being limited - by not doing everything, by letting people and companies do most of the building.
> But "best government is least government" is a truly toxic and self-destructive meme that has badly infected US culture. If you want to understand what you're actually saying with that sentence, s/government/civilization/g. Government is simply the mechanism through which we collectively build our civilization.
Now that our civilization is built, we don't need armies of elected politicians or long-term, unelected functionaries controlling the society or ourselves.
Now that our civilization is built, we don't need armies of elected politicians or long-term, unelected functionaries controlling the society or ourselves.
It's worth comparing the way the Constitution is amended in Hungary and the USA. In Hungary the process is too fast, in the USA the process is too slow. There must be a sweet spot, in-between these two countries:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre...
> Which isn't a society.
Your terms are acceptable.
Your terms are acceptable.
>I think that best government is least government...
and thus if need a project management class in the company then making sure they're webbed up and tied down with process, procedures, and other bullshit to the point of almost total sclerosis is the best way to get our projects delivered on time and under budget!
and thus if need a project management class in the company then making sure they're webbed up and tied down with process, procedures, and other bullshit to the point of almost total sclerosis is the best way to get our projects delivered on time and under budget!
I’ve been wondering if we should replace government entirely with all the project managers. They all huddle together learning strategies, processes and practicing on one another. They can read history and philosophy too if deemed useful.
The actual work gets done by everyone else. When a project comes up, the project team applies for a manager or two for just their one project. “Government” helps determine the appropriate management system for the project outcomes and rents/gives the project a (team of) managers trained in Scrum/PRINCE/Consensus/holocracy/etc. At the end of the project the team disbands and the managers return to the pool.
The actual work gets done by everyone else. When a project comes up, the project team applies for a manager or two for just their one project. “Government” helps determine the appropriate management system for the project outcomes and rents/gives the project a (team of) managers trained in Scrum/PRINCE/Consensus/holocracy/etc. At the end of the project the team disbands and the managers return to the pool.
> Shorter terms devolve the actual functions of governance to unelected, long term burrocrats, thereby ensuring the reigns of power are held in a stable structure that cannot be perturbed by passing social fancies. and that would be better yet, right?
Well, sure. I am glad to have domain experts who understand the trade offs of highway construction or whatnot on the execution side while other people operate at a higher level of abstraction (how do we allocate funds at a macro level, and trade off the various interests?).
It’s far from perfect but far more effective than having elected officials decide how thick the roadbeds should be or the maximum spacing for electrical plugs in houses.
Well, sure. I am glad to have domain experts who understand the trade offs of highway construction or whatnot on the execution side while other people operate at a higher level of abstraction (how do we allocate funds at a macro level, and trade off the various interests?).
It’s far from perfect but far more effective than having elected officials decide how thick the roadbeds should be or the maximum spacing for electrical plugs in houses.
Suggested in a previous essay, in a world of complexity and great specialization, political power should shift to the highly specialized committees:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
>> I think that best government is least government
Ok. That is literally an extremist view. It is too easy a mantra. Exactly how little government would be too small? I personally think the IRS should be funded, so to the FBI, EPA and military. Other people think otherwise and would be happy to do away with all those agencies. But to say that less is always better is to wash one's hands of the conversation, to abandon the hard task of working out exactly which services society wants and needs from government. Less always seems better until you actually need something.
Ok. That is literally an extremist view. It is too easy a mantra. Exactly how little government would be too small? I personally think the IRS should be funded, so to the FBI, EPA and military. Other people think otherwise and would be happy to do away with all those agencies. But to say that less is always better is to wash one's hands of the conversation, to abandon the hard task of working out exactly which services society wants and needs from government. Less always seems better until you actually need something.
I'm quite fond of the NWS; one the one hand there's no particular reason it must be a government body; on the other hand that frees them from "performance metrics" and the need for hype ... but doesn't insulate them, either.
"best government is no government" would be extremist. I submit that "least government" is a reasonable view that admits there are positive functions of government in society, even if they are "all the other options suck worse" judgements where "positive" is "least negative".
"best government is no government" would be extremist. I submit that "least government" is a reasonable view that admits there are positive functions of government in society, even if they are "all the other options suck worse" judgements where "positive" is "least negative".
On the contrary. It's a bold claim that there should be a government with any size at all. The modern nation state is a relatively recent invention. There is no reason why it among all possible forms of organization or unorganization should be the global optimum. What's more frightening to me is that it would be a local optimum - a corridor of thought impossible to reverse course on once decided, and always preventing us from reaching a more perfect form of governance or ungovernence as the case may be. I'm not here to discuss the benefits any particular form of governance, that's irrelevant to the idea of only having local information in an governance optimization landscape.
All known human societies have government, even the most primitive tribes, so I'm not clear what your point is. I was just reading about the The Tripolye Culture giant-settlements in Ukraine, from 7,000 years ago, who seem to have had something like a democratic government:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1842174835/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1842174835/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
The confusion you're experiencing is because I specifically mentioned "modern nation states" and you responded with "even the most primitive tribes." If we stick to the same topic, it might be more clear.
You seem to be playing with words. Governments exist among all human societies, not just nation-states.
About this:
"There is no reason why it among all possible forms of organization"
Whatever form of organization you want to invent for a society, that will be a form of government.
About this:
"There is no reason why it among all possible forms of organization"
Whatever form of organization you want to invent for a society, that will be a form of government.
> Whatever form of organization you want to invent for a society, that will be a form of government.
What is the name for this ideology? It feels like it's the political version of Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism, but I've never seen it given a name before. I am of course interpreting this through a Bergerian/Luckmannian lens[1].
1. Specifically by way of "reification is the apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were something other than human products - such as facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will." p 106 TSCoR http://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reali...
What is the name for this ideology? It feels like it's the political version of Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism, but I've never seen it given a name before. I am of course interpreting this through a Bergerian/Luckmannian lens[1].
1. Specifically by way of "reification is the apprehension of the products of human activity as if they were something other than human products - such as facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will." p 106 TSCoR http://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reali...
You continue to play with words. You are using words to obscure your meaning, rather than reveal your meaning.
Right, though I suspect this would nevertheless not happen if between the two of us we were familiar with the works I referenced.
>The modern nation state is a relatively recent invention
On what time scale, geologic?
On what time scale, geologic?
> Shorter terms devolve the actual functions of governance to unelected,
Baked into that statement is the assumption shorter electoral terms means shorter periods in power. It doesn't.
Governments tend to stay in power for about 8 years where I live, which has 3 year terms. That doesn't seem to be much different to the UK, were terms are twice as long, or the US for that matter. But individual politicians are often there for decades. The fate of the election tends to depend on 10 or 20 swinging seats, out of about 80. Typically a bureaucrat is going to be dealing with politicians with decades of experience at handling bureaucrats.
It's not always true of course. Occasionally, the electorate does get riled up when the government does a particularly poor job. And then it isn't just a matter of 10 or 20 seats, most of them change, and it's after a minimal term in office. But that's only happened literally once in 60 years to me. Yes, that's inefficient, but I don't see any choice. Occasionally, the political class needs to be reminded who is actually in charge. 3 year reminders seems to work well enough.
Baked into that statement is the assumption shorter electoral terms means shorter periods in power. It doesn't.
Governments tend to stay in power for about 8 years where I live, which has 3 year terms. That doesn't seem to be much different to the UK, were terms are twice as long, or the US for that matter. But individual politicians are often there for decades. The fate of the election tends to depend on 10 or 20 swinging seats, out of about 80. Typically a bureaucrat is going to be dealing with politicians with decades of experience at handling bureaucrats.
It's not always true of course. Occasionally, the electorate does get riled up when the government does a particularly poor job. And then it isn't just a matter of 10 or 20 seats, most of them change, and it's after a minimal term in office. But that's only happened literally once in 60 years to me. Yes, that's inefficient, but I don't see any choice. Occasionally, the political class needs to be reminded who is actually in charge. 3 year reminders seems to work well enough.
> Shorter terms devolve the actual functions of governance to unelected, long term burrocrats, thereby ensuring the reigns of power are held in a stable structure that cannot be perturbed by passing social fancies.
Does it though? It's much more than just the heads of agencies that are political appointees [1] that change with administrations.
It may appear that the government can be slowed by paperwork but there really is no penalty for the executive branch (or any branch) to just ignore the other branches (ex. [2]).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears#Legal_backgroun...
Does it though? It's much more than just the heads of agencies that are political appointees [1] that change with administrations.
It may appear that the government can be slowed by paperwork but there really is no penalty for the executive branch (or any branch) to just ignore the other branches (ex. [2]).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears#Legal_backgroun...
I get the sentiment but I'm really curious to ask. What happens if someone wants to go into politics to make positive change for a community and it's bogged down with that same process, procedures, and other bullshit?
Then "politics" is not the means to make a positive change in society. Cf Elon Musk.
I don't think Anarchists and US style Libertarians understand the implications of their beliefs. Go look at countries where there are very weak central governments. You will universally find strife, famine, corruption, war, etc. These are not utopias, frankly they are dystopic.
I hear this argument and look at every authoritarian dictator that has been in power their whole life but they all seem to lead shitty governments not good ones.
I call bs.
I think most people are bad at leading and an easy way to get rid of bad leaders results in better governance than a bad leader that has life long power.
I call bs.
I think most people are bad at leading and an easy way to get rid of bad leaders results in better governance than a bad leader that has life long power.
Here’s a counter example: France reduced its presidential term from seven to five years because it found that the longer term exhibited worse hysteresis.*
Also, California implemented term limits which have made the government worse: rather than having a politician learn the ropes and build a specific practice over time, they get into office, spend a term learning and doing a little useful stuff; by the second term they can start to be really useful, but have to think about their next job as well. This has increased the power of lobbyists who do have longer tenure.
* The specific problem was electing an unpopular and corrupt president because his alternative was worse.
Also, California implemented term limits which have made the government worse: rather than having a politician learn the ropes and build a specific practice over time, they get into office, spend a term learning and doing a little useful stuff; by the second term they can start to be really useful, but have to think about their next job as well. This has increased the power of lobbyists who do have longer tenure.
* The specific problem was electing an unpopular and corrupt president because his alternative was worse.
Term limits are a band-aid without a purpose, at least in the USA, because each and every "term" person could get primaried.
Since they don't, term limits are mostly sour grapes on the part of the losing faction.
So they literally become "you can vote for whomever you want, except the person you actually want".
Since they don't, term limits are mostly sour grapes on the part of the losing faction.
So they literally become "you can vote for whomever you want, except the person you actually want".
> you can vote for whomever you want, except the person you actually want".
That’s basically a problem of every governmental system, including autocratic ones (why should that person be king? Well at this point trying to change it would lead to a power struggle that would be even worse, so I’ll just put up with it).
Democracies are all about trade offs and mostly about least worst decisions. Still superior to anything else tried so far.
That’s basically a problem of every governmental system, including autocratic ones (why should that person be king? Well at this point trying to change it would lead to a power struggle that would be even worse, so I’ll just put up with it).
Democracies are all about trade offs and mostly about least worst decisions. Still superior to anything else tried so far.
Actually, France reduced it's political term mainly for avoiding the " cohabitation" effect.
But agree the short term led the impossibility to define and implement a Vision.
But agree the short term led the impossibility to define and implement a Vision.
In theory this sounds promising. However I think the current problem of government these days isn't the elected officials but rather the disconnection between what people say they want and believe in and the politicians they elect.
How many times am I going to read about someone who voted for Brexit then suffer the consequences of exactly what they were warned about - farmers, fishermen, expats living abroad who voted for Brexit, and then when they suffer consequences of leaving the EU their response is "This is not what I voted for!"
Uh, yes, actually you did. This is exactly what you voted for.
How many times am I going to read about someone who voted for Brexit then suffer the consequences of exactly what they were warned about - farmers, fishermen, expats living abroad who voted for Brexit, and then when they suffer consequences of leaving the EU their response is "This is not what I voted for!"
Uh, yes, actually you did. This is exactly what you voted for.
Addressed in a previous essay:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
I'm a big fan of Virginia's governor system. The term is six years. You can be governor as many times as you like, but you cannot succeed yourself.
It's term limits without the limit and provides the elected official with enough time to get something meaningful done.
If you elect the wrong one, though, you're stuck with 'em for a while.
It's term limits without the limit and provides the elected official with enough time to get something meaningful done.
If you elect the wrong one, though, you're stuck with 'em for a while.
In terms of the US i think there are deeper problems to be fixed before really worrying about term length. A really obvious one that no one seems to want to tackle is that the sizes of political bodies in the us federal government (the house and the Supreme Court in particular) have been frozen for about 100 years while the population and diversity of the country have both exploded.
Get it so that a member of the house represents a reasonable number of people (and the body as a whole can return to actually being somewhat popularly elected - right now you almost have two senates really) and the court’s ideological balance can’t be completely u-turned by 2 people dying in as many years and then you can maybe fix some other stuff.
Get it so that a member of the house represents a reasonable number of people (and the body as a whole can return to actually being somewhat popularly elected - right now you almost have two senates really) and the court’s ideological balance can’t be completely u-turned by 2 people dying in as many years and then you can maybe fix some other stuff.
Addressed in a previous essay:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
> Activists run for office and get in and fight for what they believe, to the extent that the system allows them to do so. We often see politicians fight for unpopular ideas, simply because they believe those ideas are morally good.
Name an activist that got any sort of political power? just one.
Politicians talk, they say nice things the populous likes to hear they don't fight for unpopular ideas that would reduce their change of getting reelected.
The truth is that in a democracy long term projects like building infrastructure is done by long term agencies and politicians just take credit.
I think op hears politicians take credit and say if only I am reelected leader for life I will build more bigger and better and op believe them.
Name an activist that got any sort of political power? just one.
Politicians talk, they say nice things the populous likes to hear they don't fight for unpopular ideas that would reduce their change of getting reelected.
The truth is that in a democracy long term projects like building infrastructure is done by long term agencies and politicians just take credit.
I think op hears politicians take credit and say if only I am reelected leader for life I will build more bigger and better and op believe them.
Observing agency heads run circles around elected representatives during hearings, I quickly flipped to oppose term limits.
There are so many obvious, non-controversial good government reforms. Applicable to all levels of govt: federal, state, county, city, districts, boards, etc.
There are so many obvious, non-controversial good government reforms. Applicable to all levels of govt: federal, state, county, city, districts, boards, etc.
living wages
full staff
public financing of campaigns
proportional representation (assemblies) & approval voting (executive positions)
lengthen the legislative calendar, maybe even open ended
default to public disclosure, eg data.gov for all
Where to start...
In a democracy, pandering to the citizenry is kind of the point.
Long term plans that work and are popular are often continued even by governments with diametrically opposed agendas.
What would lead to better democracy is a populace that isnt informed by network TV and tabloids with owners who have diametrically opposed interests to their readers/viewers, not longer term limits.
Blairite governments werent neoliberal because of short term limits. They were neoliberal coz thats what the blairites/brownites were.
The theory that voters dont punish bad behavior is fairly well disproved just by looking at the last presidential election.
In a democracy, pandering to the citizenry is kind of the point.
Long term plans that work and are popular are often continued even by governments with diametrically opposed agendas.
What would lead to better democracy is a populace that isnt informed by network TV and tabloids with owners who have diametrically opposed interests to their readers/viewers, not longer term limits.
Blairite governments werent neoliberal because of short term limits. They were neoliberal coz thats what the blairites/brownites were.
The theory that voters dont punish bad behavior is fairly well disproved just by looking at the last presidential election.
From the essay, quoting Democracy For Realists:
----------------------
By Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels
Page 110-111
Canes-Wrone, Herron, and Shotts’s analysis identifies the circumstances under which an incumbent may be tempted to “pander” - implementing the policy preferred by the voters even though her private information suggests that it will not serve their interests. In their basic model, pandering occurs when the probability is not too high that the inferiority of the voters’ preferred policy will be revealed before the next election (and if the expected quality of a prospective challenger is strong enough that the incumbent has to worry about her public standing at election time).
----------------------
By Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels
Page 110-111
Canes-Wrone, Herron, and Shotts’s analysis identifies the circumstances under which an incumbent may be tempted to “pander” - implementing the policy preferred by the voters even though her private information suggests that it will not serve their interests. In their basic model, pandering occurs when the probability is not too high that the inferiority of the voters’ preferred policy will be revealed before the next election (and if the expected quality of a prospective challenger is strong enough that the incumbent has to worry about her public standing at election time).
This model essentially glosses over the phenomenona of policies sold to voters as fixes for their problems by dishonest media.
It also assumes that politicians essentially only want one term and would be perfectly content to be destroyed electorally in their third term if they can win their second term.
It also assumes that politicians essentially only want one term and would be perfectly content to be destroyed electorally in their third term if they can win their second term.
No, it assumes amnesia on the part of the voters. There is an abundance of evidence backing up the assumption of amnesia. Study after study shows that voters are only paying attention for the 6 months before an election. Even where 80% of the voters follow events and are well informed, the election is determined by the 20% who are poorly informed. There is a fix for this, discussed here:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
"What would lead to better democracy is a populace that isnt informed by network TV and tabloids"
Addressed in a previous essay:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
Addressed in a previous essay:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-democracy-empowe...
I'm very interested in novel forms of policy making, alternatives to parliamentary procedure. Your suggestions are worth trying out. Perhaps as a game or simulation, a la Nomics.
I'm personally interested in participatory democracy strategies like citizen juries.
Not to be confused with direct democracy strategies like initiatives. Which have proven to be poor choices.
Emphasis on the deliberation, discourse, participation. Versus just voting.
Learning how the Iroquois governed is on my "to do" list.
I'm personally interested in participatory democracy strategies like citizen juries.
Not to be confused with direct democracy strategies like initiatives. Which have proven to be poor choices.
Emphasis on the deliberation, discourse, participation. Versus just voting.
Learning how the Iroquois governed is on my "to do" list.
For what it's worth, I'm working on a software simulation that will allow testing of different systems, to see how close a system of voting can come to aggregating the preferences of voters. Back in 1953, Kenneth Arrow published his Impossibility Theorem, which proved that rank voting failed to aggregate voter preferences. He later won a Nobel Prize, in part for this work. But Arrow remained hopeful about "approval" voting, where the voters get an infinite number of votes. The central problem is that our voting systems today tend to be course-grained, and they need to be fine-grained if they are to aggregate the will of the voters, without having small, random variations swamp the results. So I'm working on a simulation to let everyone experiment with all the possible variables: how many votes, how many candidates, etc.
Nice. Please share when you're ready.
I share your concern about grain (scope). Both bundling unrelated stuff as well as the need to preserve (protect) mutually dependent facets. A "just so" example of the later is comprehensive progressive tax reform is easily sabotaged by breaking up the effort.
I'm so glad you're thinking about these issues.
I share your concern about grain (scope). Both bundling unrelated stuff as well as the need to preserve (protect) mutually dependent facets. A "just so" example of the later is comprehensive progressive tax reform is easily sabotaged by breaking up the effort.
I'm so glad you're thinking about these issues.
> What would lead to better democracy
Is actually having an effectively democratic system, starting with an electoral system which produces proportional representation.
Is actually having an effectively democratic system, starting with an electoral system which produces proportional representation.
I see lots of comments about democracy/democracies yet all examples that I read are not the way the original democracy was designed. All of them are republics, which is where the problems begin regardless of the length of time a politician is in place.
The world would be a far better place if there were actual democracies in place, however you wouldn’t have mega wealthy people and that simply cannot stand in today world.
Hard disagree. If we increase the delay in a control loop it will affect its stability. In fact, it is very hard to argue against the opposite, namely (arbitrarily) short terms from a theoretical pov. How legit is a government which does not have the support of the population at any given time?
Or intuitively as t tends to infinity the system would be tending to some form of dictatorship.
Or intuitively as t tends to infinity the system would be tending to some form of dictatorship.
I might be inclined to think this would be a good idea but only if it was coupled with a term limit of 1. If you get to run for a theoretically unlimited number of 9-year terms, that's just our current system with fewer elections.
But, if you run for Congress and are prohibited from any legislative position once your 9-year term is up, you might actually be incentivized to try and be productive.
But, if you run for Congress and are prohibited from any legislative position once your 9-year term is up, you might actually be incentivized to try and be productive.
From the essay:
"A final thought: the top judges in Britain are appointed for 18 years, which apparently is the length of time that Britain thinks offers the best balance of accountability and independence. So maybe our politicians should be elected for a single term of 18 years, with no chance of running for a second term? In such a case, they could spend 100% of their time focused on their legacy, without having to spend one minute thinking about re-election. If we outlaw a second term, but give them the equivalent of 4 terms, then they have the incentive and pressure to do some good in the limited time they have been granted."
"A final thought: the top judges in Britain are appointed for 18 years, which apparently is the length of time that Britain thinks offers the best balance of accountability and independence. So maybe our politicians should be elected for a single term of 18 years, with no chance of running for a second term? In such a case, they could spend 100% of their time focused on their legacy, without having to spend one minute thinking about re-election. If we outlaw a second term, but give them the equivalent of 4 terms, then they have the incentive and pressure to do some good in the limited time they have been granted."
Yeah, I don't think so. The way we know we still live in a democracy if there's turn over. Some US politicians predate the fall of the Soviet Union. Politics should be competitive. Not fixed. If you let them stay too long, they will find ways to start stuffing ballot boxes.
How about a nice long term for senators. Maybe 10 years. But you only get to do it once.
Then, for the house of representatives, we could leverage Zoom and fill it with a few thousand representatives, make the terms very short, and then pick them through sortition.
Then, for the house of representatives, we could leverage Zoom and fill it with a few thousand representatives, make the terms very short, and then pick them through sortition.
I like the idea of sortition but I can't help of feel you'd end up with employed full-time legislative staff just becoming the de facto representatives. If you're an unemployed HS dropout who gets selected to be a representative, you're either going to listen to the committee staffer who's been working on this tax or education bill for the last 2 years, you're going to listen to whatever other representative manages to convince you to just vote however they vote, or you're just going to vote randomly (or not at all). Option 1 seems most likely.
We can go further down this road, moving all political power to the committees:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/why-have-politics-in-the-us...
Given how obviously current politicians just "vote like they're supposed to" I fear you're correct.
You'd have to add something else to sortition, like the legislature themselves have to come up with the laws without the staffers, or sortition them too.
You'd have to add something else to sortition, like the legislature themselves have to come up with the laws without the staffers, or sortition them too.
Perhaps requiring all legislation to start with the senate would help mitigate that somewhat.
I wish we would stop equating "election" with "democracy" and give a serious look at sortition. Pandering and career politicians are the issue, it doesn't go away with longer terms.
What would happen in the case of mandates by lot, as in the case of jurors or citizens' councils?
Has anyone ever investigated this?
Has anyone ever investigated this?
yeah like in turkey. 60% inflation now . great idea. We need better leaders, not longer terms. The possible benefits of longer terms are probably negated by the deleteriousness of having an inept leader in office too long and no way to dispose of him.
A random 2000 people from twitter would give better government than what we have.
Sortition would no joke give a perfectly representative legislative body.
Against Elections: The Case for Democracy, by David Van Reybrouck
Really good book. Not sure if this would be the "perfect" system, but I think we should at least incorporate some aspects of it.
One of my main issue with modern politics is that politicians and political parties are out of touch with people. The general populace does not have the financial means or organizational structure[1] to compete with professional lobbyists. Political parties have become an end unto themselves and they reward people within them that serve the interest of the party, over good leaders, which is evident by the sometimes ridiculous virtue signaling.
[1] Parties were supposed and used to be that organizational structure
Really good book. Not sure if this would be the "perfect" system, but I think we should at least incorporate some aspects of it.
One of my main issue with modern politics is that politicians and political parties are out of touch with people. The general populace does not have the financial means or organizational structure[1] to compete with professional lobbyists. Political parties have become an end unto themselves and they reward people within them that serve the interest of the party, over good leaders, which is evident by the sometimes ridiculous virtue signaling.
[1] Parties were supposed and used to be that organizational structure
We should totally play "Twitch Plays Pokémon" in real life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitch_Plays_Pok%C3%A9mon
The older I get the more I think that democracy is a moving target. These policies can be good, bad or whatever. Motivations and people's voting choices vary wildly. I think of it more as "would I like to try longer elected terms?" more than believing one or the other is better.
Contradicts actual economics research that voting out incumbents helps create opportunity for the public: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29766
I’m far more inclined to listen to the second most influential economic policy group in the US (after Brookings) than a random blogger who makes it sound like giving a monopoly on power is a good idea.
I’m far more inclined to listen to the second most influential economic policy group in the US (after Brookings) than a random blogger who makes it sound like giving a monopoly on power is a good idea.
As I see it, the incentives for longer terms would be the politicians are allowed to plan for longer time frames. Whether they do or not is another story. I would say this more applies to term limits as politicians can keep getting elected for essentially a life term.
The incentive for shorter terms, is you can get rid of the bad ones faster, whether we do or not is another story.
>And yet, the evidence is overwhelming that, in real life, the majority of voters do not keep track of what politicians are doing.
Of course, a constant barrage of the latest transgression of the culture war, and endless discussion of unsolvable wedge issues adds a whole lot of noise to this tracking mechanism. There is also a whole lot of spin, "he really didn't do that the way you say because ... the other party," etc. There's also not a lot of reporting on what bills are actually passed either.
IMO, we've gotta start voting out the incumbents until we start to have a government we feel comfortable ruling over us. It's the only power we really have.
The incentive for shorter terms, is you can get rid of the bad ones faster, whether we do or not is another story.
>And yet, the evidence is overwhelming that, in real life, the majority of voters do not keep track of what politicians are doing.
Of course, a constant barrage of the latest transgression of the culture war, and endless discussion of unsolvable wedge issues adds a whole lot of noise to this tracking mechanism. There is also a whole lot of spin, "he really didn't do that the way you say because ... the other party," etc. There's also not a lot of reporting on what bills are actually passed either.
IMO, we've gotta start voting out the incumbents until we start to have a government we feel comfortable ruling over us. It's the only power we really have.
The idea that politicians are corruptible chiefly through election campaigning is one thing. I rather have the impression that the corrupt environment is what attracts many candidates in the first place -- make it to congress, then rake it in from all the privileged information of the industries you're regulating, not to mention the unreasonably lucrative speaking engagements you're owed when out of office.
No amount of screwing around with term limits will somehow suddenly reduce corruption and make the U.S. a functioning democracy. No amount of voting out the incumbents will change much -- the parties significantly predetermine who you get to vote for in the first place, of course.
No amount of screwing around with term limits will somehow suddenly reduce corruption and make the U.S. a functioning democracy. No amount of voting out the incumbents will change much -- the parties significantly predetermine who you get to vote for in the first place, of course.
>No amount of voting out the incumbents will change much --
The theory I have is it will, over time, destabilize all the back room deals and self preservation mechanisms currently in place built over decades of incumbency. I can't really think of another option.
>the parties significantly predetermine who you get to vote for in the first place, of course.
I agree. Having said that, there is nothing in the constitution that even mentions political parties, they were an invention to gain power during the Washington administration, and they are highly effective. Would it be any worse to elect some third party representatives just as a protest vote?
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
- Boss Tweed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
The theory I have is it will, over time, destabilize all the back room deals and self preservation mechanisms currently in place built over decades of incumbency. I can't really think of another option.
>the parties significantly predetermine who you get to vote for in the first place, of course.
I agree. Having said that, there is nothing in the constitution that even mentions political parties, they were an invention to gain power during the Washington administration, and they are highly effective. Would it be any worse to elect some third party representatives just as a protest vote?
"I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating."
- Boss Tweed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
You are essentially saying that if only we voted less frequently, we'd somehow have more democracy and less corruption.
This would increase the influence of the two major parties even more (candidacies would be more rare, after all, so even more is at stake for each election). Why would extending a term suddenly make a politician less concerned about their own power and wealth and suddenly start actually doing things for their _constituents_?
I think the root of the problem is that somehow we ended up with a congress full of people whose last thought is for their actual constituents. There are a lot of insightful observations on how this came to be, but none of them point to term limits or length of terms as being the cause.
This would increase the influence of the two major parties even more (candidacies would be more rare, after all, so even more is at stake for each election). Why would extending a term suddenly make a politician less concerned about their own power and wealth and suddenly start actually doing things for their _constituents_?
I think the root of the problem is that somehow we ended up with a congress full of people whose last thought is for their actual constituents. There are a lot of insightful observations on how this came to be, but none of them point to term limits or length of terms as being the cause.
>You are essentially saying that if only we voted less frequently, we'd somehow have more democracy and less corruption.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying we should vote out the incumbents until we have a government we are happy ruling us.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying we should vote out the incumbents until we have a government we are happy ruling us.
Fair enough -- terribly sorry to have conflated your argument as being tacitly in support of the idea of the article.
FWIW, I basically agree with voting out these present incumbents, except that I think the major parties are irredeemable, so what's the point? I'd love for an election to show everyone voting 3rd party and no one voting for the duopoly.
FWIW, I basically agree with voting out these present incumbents, except that I think the major parties are irredeemable, so what's the point? I'd love for an election to show everyone voting 3rd party and no one voting for the duopoly.
Well as seen first-hand in some post-communists countries, many politicians do plan long-term - but not in a way you'd wish. They plan to build themselves into everything and suck profits from every money vein that country has. That's long-term planning too and it's happening as we speak. So yes I'm here with you, incumbents, hopefully real and not only front-ends, are still the only way we have to push for change.
We compared Hungary and the USA here:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre...
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/thesis-1-there-is-one-corre...
Look we have plenty of long term officials in Congress.
It’s a train wreck. Their plans enacted insulate them from real work and threaten the public with repercussions for not doing the work they won’t.
It was tried. This is the result; another nostalgia obsessed group of elites an gerontocrats bleating story and words of power that are nonsense.
We should ban old people from roles that impact the next generations they won’t be around for.
It’s tacit ageism against the youth but no one will call it that.
It’s shocking how kowtowed we are by people we’ve just seen have no ability to support themselves without abusing workers. So much for American memes of self sufficiency. Their self sufficiency is still based upon dumping on lower castes.
It’s a train wreck. Their plans enacted insulate them from real work and threaten the public with repercussions for not doing the work they won’t.
It was tried. This is the result; another nostalgia obsessed group of elites an gerontocrats bleating story and words of power that are nonsense.
We should ban old people from roles that impact the next generations they won’t be around for.
It’s tacit ageism against the youth but no one will call it that.
It’s shocking how kowtowed we are by people we’ve just seen have no ability to support themselves without abusing workers. So much for American memes of self sufficiency. Their self sufficiency is still based upon dumping on lower castes.
We're voting right now in Switzerland about giving voting rights in some areas to 16yo. A common rhetoric against that is calling them "manipulation mass for the left". Of course that's conveniently ignoring the manipulation mass of the conservative right, the 70+ which vote having a completely different horizon in mind.
LOL, economics. It's increasingly clear it bears no relation to what is good for society.
I've arrived at a personal observation that what is "good for the economy" is often bad for you as an individual and what is good for you as an individual is "bad for the economy". Yes, I know actual economics is ridiculously complex and can not be simplified and distilled so easily, but as a rule of thumb, just watch how often this observation seems to be true.
Thats becasue 'economy' in its colloquial usage has been bastardized to mean 'return on capital'
Actual economics is easy; people trade information innately.
Ok sure an economist can wrap it in math with correct order of operations as it looks like this geometric object on paper. But that’s unnecessary obfuscation intended to empower them and traditional talking points.
It’s 1984 levels of double speak going on; without economists counting there would still be trade. Their work does not give rise to human agency.
Ok sure an economist can wrap it in math with correct order of operations as it looks like this geometric object on paper. But that’s unnecessary obfuscation intended to empower them and traditional talking points.
It’s 1984 levels of double speak going on; without economists counting there would still be trade. Their work does not give rise to human agency.
This was covered in an earlier essay in the series:
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...
"""Again, the benefits of democracy have been well-documented. Amartya Sen (whose work we will review this coming February) won a Nobel Prize for showing that people in democracies do not suffer from famine. People in democracies are better protected against disease, are more likely to be vaccinated against common childhood illnesses, and tend to have better educations provided by their governments. In the long run, democracies tend to experience more economic growth than non-democracies, though at any given time there might be a non-democracy that is growing very fast. One study has shown that men are taller in democracies.
And yet, there is substantial evidence that most voters do not care much about politics, do not understand the issues, do not want to engage in study of the issues, and often sabotage their own interests. (See previous essays.)
So the benefits of democracy probably don’t come from the voters. The benefits must come from structural factors, such as the voting itself, the transfer of power among different political parties, the ability of the political parties to funnel the frustrations of the people into productive channels (rather than resorting to civil war), the ability of newspapers and media to mediate the conflicts among the most powerful interests, making the tensions transparent so that they can be better managed, or possibly the free and unfettered activity of the most important professions, such as lawyers and health professionals and religious leaders and the accountants, plus other sources of accountability for money. As we noted in a previous essay, those democracies that have frequent changes in power among parties tend to have less corruption than those democracies where one party has held power for several decades in a row, so the mere transfer of power among parties seems to limit corruption (and this is true even when the leaders of all parties are known to be corrupt!)"""
https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...
"""Again, the benefits of democracy have been well-documented. Amartya Sen (whose work we will review this coming February) won a Nobel Prize for showing that people in democracies do not suffer from famine. People in democracies are better protected against disease, are more likely to be vaccinated against common childhood illnesses, and tend to have better educations provided by their governments. In the long run, democracies tend to experience more economic growth than non-democracies, though at any given time there might be a non-democracy that is growing very fast. One study has shown that men are taller in democracies.
And yet, there is substantial evidence that most voters do not care much about politics, do not understand the issues, do not want to engage in study of the issues, and often sabotage their own interests. (See previous essays.)
So the benefits of democracy probably don’t come from the voters. The benefits must come from structural factors, such as the voting itself, the transfer of power among different political parties, the ability of the political parties to funnel the frustrations of the people into productive channels (rather than resorting to civil war), the ability of newspapers and media to mediate the conflicts among the most powerful interests, making the tensions transparent so that they can be better managed, or possibly the free and unfettered activity of the most important professions, such as lawyers and health professionals and religious leaders and the accountants, plus other sources of accountability for money. As we noted in a previous essay, those democracies that have frequent changes in power among parties tend to have less corruption than those democracies where one party has held power for several decades in a row, so the mere transfer of power among parties seems to limit corruption (and this is true even when the leaders of all parties are known to be corrupt!)"""
I agree it does not come from voting as politicians themselves are just rent seekers.
Economic opportunity comes from the masses clearly not wanting to kill each other but collaborate. If the opposite was true we’d have done it already.
The politics of it are a synthetic inner monologue implanted by power structures. Circle English constructs all they want, the scientific truth is people collaborate without the high minded bullshit of Anglo-gibberish. We did it before formal language, why believe sermonizing in historical script means anything?
Bridges and machines need a formal language for safety. I am unconvinced formal language defining social truths can be anything more than mind viruses intent on thought policing.
Am I freer by ogling images of Pelosi with her magic scepter and nodding along with McConnell’s obvious equivocations? No. I’m surrendering agency to standing there nodding along, memorizing their platform and sermons.
Coddling such things in our inner monologue is antithetical to free speech and agency.
Economic opportunity comes from the masses clearly not wanting to kill each other but collaborate. If the opposite was true we’d have done it already.
The politics of it are a synthetic inner monologue implanted by power structures. Circle English constructs all they want, the scientific truth is people collaborate without the high minded bullshit of Anglo-gibberish. We did it before formal language, why believe sermonizing in historical script means anything?
Bridges and machines need a formal language for safety. I am unconvinced formal language defining social truths can be anything more than mind viruses intent on thought policing.
Am I freer by ogling images of Pelosi with her magic scepter and nodding along with McConnell’s obvious equivocations? No. I’m surrendering agency to standing there nodding along, memorizing their platform and sermons.
Coddling such things in our inner monologue is antithetical to free speech and agency.
No elected terms would lead to a better government.
You either mean "no government" or "leader for life," which are basically two opposite sides of a spectrum.
this is an argument from incredulity, We could form a system for justice that is completely distributed, with no hierarchy of leaders, where every complaint of trespass is filed on ( for example ) a blockchain, a random jury is drawn from a pool of volunteers to hear every case, individually. The same infrastructure could be used to organize funding for public works, I.e. "this road brought to you by X" or, "5% of every purchase goes toward Y".
He showed us what a democracy gets you - it's government by the least common denominator. It devolves to sensualism, that is, the highest aim of the people is to satisfy their desires, and they capture the government for that purpose.
-
My unsolicited opinion: a government reflects its people. If the people are corrupt, so too the government. I think the framers of the US Constitution understood it, and knowing their peers corruptible, set up precedent and procedure to ensure stable government.
We've had some rocky patches, and we're encountering another bumpy stretch of trail, but with history as our guide, we'll pull together when the moment's need arises.